tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 5, 2013 6:30pm-8:31pm EST
mr. reid: i ask that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider
calendar numbers 393 through 402 and 419. and that all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, navy, the nominations be con nirmd en bloc and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we proceed to calendar number 231. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 231, h.r. 2747, an act to amend title 40, united states code to transfer certain functions from the government accountability office to the department of labor and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask further that the bill be read a third time, passed the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table and
that there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 286. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 286 congratulating oracle team u.s.a. for winning the 34th america's cup. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 287. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 287 congratulating the boston red sox on winning the 2013 world series. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the motion. mr. reid: i scurt furt ask resolution the be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate.
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, if it were in order which it's not i would ask that the record be spread, this resolution just passed with the same tim mitchell on it. i've followed baseball from the time i was a little boy and i consider myself a fan of payable baseball, love baseball. but i have never known a more rabid fan than tim mitchell who as we depend on so very, very much to help us work through all the things we do here in the senate. he is a fan bordering on illness, supporting this team. he has -- has a red sox tie, pin, i expect next to see if he lifted up his shirt he'd have a tattoo of the red sox. i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. on wednesday,
november 6 and following the prayer and 34re7b8g, the morning business deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day, following any leader remarks the motion to proceed to s. 815 the employee nondiscrimination act be agreed to and the senate begin consideration of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the
who has argued so well that the time has come to take a bold aro step in favor of equality, in favor of fairness, and pass the employment nondiscrimination act. i, too, rise to speak to the importance of this action.e the decoration of independence in the second paragraph says in words that are famous and well-known to all americans. among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. certainly that vision of life, liberty, and -- pursuit of happiness is infused in to everything we pursue in this nation, the success of individuals and success of our families and the success of our communities and the success of our nation.
and the debate in which we're about to embark is deeply connected to the debate. because certainly the ability to be free from discrimination in the pursuit of a job and to be free from discrimination in the court of employment is central to that pursuit of happiness. it is central to the issue of liberty. i rise today to say how important and vital this is to millions of americans which discrimination blocked and comprise the vision laid out in the declaration of independence. and this bill, this framework for any discrimination employment, senate bill 815 is born with a lot of bipartisan partners who might like to thank
at this moment. it was back in 2009, my first year in the u.s. senate, that senator kennedy and his team asked me to take leadership of this bill he had held near and dear to his heart. to carry the torch forward in fighting for fairness and employment. fight areing for an end to discrimination. since that time, many stepped forward to be partners. senator colins was the first chief sponsor from the republican sidestepping forward and taking her voice, energy, experience and insight to bear. after two years she passed the baton to senator mark kirk. it's been a long time champion of a vision of fairness and equality for all americans. both of them have done an outstanding and extraordinary job in forwarding this
dialogue. and on the democratic side, we have first and foremost senator kennedy who carried this leadership for many years including back in 1996 when we had this on the floor of the senate. i'm return to that in due course. the champion for civil rights in many, many different parts of our world, including race discrimination and gender discrimination and discrimination against the lgbt community. and senator harkins who chairs the health education, and labor committee that carried this bill forward through two hearings in 2009 and 2012 who carried it forward in to the markup this last year and who prepared to send to the floor. thank you, senator harkin, for your leadership. and senator tammy baldwin, who
came to us with her personal story, who came to her with her experience of leadership from the house to extend the conversation here in the senate and carried on so many individual meanings. to speak to these core issues of equality and fairness and opportunity. so thank you to this bipartisan set of sponsors, and thank you to everyone who last night said yes, we should debate this issue. we should debate this issue of discrimination blocking full opportunity for millions of americans. and so shortly we'll be engaged in that debate. after the declaration of independence, we have the preamble to the constitution. this, also, is well-known to americans across the land. "we the people of the united states in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquil ifity, for most the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to our ourselves and our process territorial-typety ordain the constitution of the united states of america. here we have the core concepts of justice and the blessings of liberty for that generation, the generations that would follow. what exactly is liberty? what is freedom? senator kennedy, in 1965 in a commencement address to howard university said freedom is the right to share, share fully and equality in american society. to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go a school.
senator johnson continued, it is the right to be treated in -- president johnson continued it's treat equal, dignity, and promise to all others. ic it's a pretty good description what liberty and freedom means. a right to participate fully in american society. in every respect at the voting boothe, in the job place, and in the public square as you would choose to participate. the employment nondiscrimination act which ends discrimination against the lgbt is rooted in the best american values. liberty and freedom in the founding documents and vision. it's rooted in the concept of fundamental fairness. how unfair is it if an individual who is seeking to apply to a job cannot have the full opportunity for that job? a full opportunity to thrive
because of discrimination? how fair is it because who you are outside the workplace that you are fired from the workplace. let us think of the golden rule. we all learn this early in life that we should treat others according to how we would want to be treated. we all want to be treated with respect and dignity that president johnson referred to. it is a vision of equality, it was in the declaration of independence. and it's the vision of opportunity rooted so deeply in the american dream. the idea that an america, if you work and study hard you can do whatever you want to be. that's something my father
taught me. but discrimination takes away from that vision of opportunity. it says, if so you study hard, here in america you can do just about anything unless jew u have a certain color of skin. unless you have a certain gender. unless you can have a certain gender identity or sexual orientation. we have struck down many of the barriers. we have advanced on the vision of equality. we have further to go. that's what this debate is about. in 29 states, you can still be fired from a job. you can still be told not to apply in the beginning because of your sexual orientation. or your gender identity. in 29 states. it should not be the case that
the vision of equality and fair pes and opportunity -- fairness and opportunity happens to occur on one side of a state but destroyed if you cross the state line. because the vision of opportunity and fairness and equal any the declaration of independence didn't say if it's only live in particular states only if you live in the 21 states that have protection for our lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. only live in you 17 states that have protections of employment for our transgender community. the journey of this legislation began in 1974, it was a year after stone wall. 39 years ago, introduced in the house of representatives legislation that ban job
discrimination. it took another nineteen years before such legislation was introduced here in the u.s. senate. and hearings held in the labor and human resources committee in 1994. it was two years later that the bill was debated on this chamber. right here in this very room and the outcome was 49-4 50 against with vice president gore sitting right now in the presiding chair with the senator from hawaii sits. vice president gore already clarified where he stood. we were missing one senator and one vote. as a result it's been 17 years since the conversation was held in the chamber. 17 years of discrimination in
america. it's time to end the discrimination and enhance the vision of equality and fairness. today we have a bill that has before us 55 cosponsors. when we think about that 49-50 seventeen years ago we might say isn't it a done deal? there are 55 cosponsors, you only need 51 or 50 plus the vice president to pass a bill in the u.s. senate. it's not a done deal. in the last decade and a half the senate has gone from being a simple majority chamber as envisioned in the constitution to being a chamber where every action takes a super majority vote. we needed a supermajority of 60 to get on to the bill last night. and everyone anticipates we'll need 60 votes to get off the bill to close the bill and have a final vote. it's no the the senate that has
been with us for 200 years. it's the senate of the last 10 years. the courtesy of extended debate has been turned to the veto of a supermajority. that's where we stand right now; therefore, we need 60 votes. we had 61 votes last night to get on the debate. i thank every one of the 61 senators who said yes. after seventeen years, it's time to debate this issue. yes, it's right to consider issue ever core fairness to millions of americans. yes, it is right to recognize that we should have a debate about the impact of discrimination on the ability of the individual to have full opportunity in our nation. so thank you to the 61 senators who stood up last night. have no doubt, discrimination is alive and well.
i share with you a story of laura from portland, oregon. before oregon had nondiscrimination clauses which we developed in 2007. and she notes from 1980 to 1996 she worked for the sheriff office in oregon. she had the rank of sergeant. she was promoted often. she worked as a variety of capacities including as a s.w.a.t. team commander, a detective in the major crimes unit, and the narcotics task force. during her 16 years she notes, she said i received numerous common dedications including for removing an automobile accident victim from a burning vehicle, disarming an armed man intent on harming himself. she was awarded for her expertise. she was named deputy of the year
in 1994. she taught law enforcement classes at the community college and the oregon police academy. she had a distinguished employment record on labor day of 1995 she was in a remote area when a police dog attacked her and did some damage to her leg. she was awarded administrative leave. during the month that followed her storage unit was broken in to. out of the storage unit came information that she was a transgender individual. because of that she was fired. stellar career. in every aspect. but a break in to her storage unit plus discrimination ended that career.
she ends her commentary by saying: had employment nondiscrimination laws have been in effect. i likely would continue to serve the citizens of the county to this day. we know from her employment record she would have been well served. that was before oregon adopted antidiscrimination legislation. many people have written to share their stories. terri wrote, thank you for continuing the fight against discrimination. i am retired now, but i did lose a job when i was young for being a lesbian. until later in life i stayed deep in the closet to keep from losing another job. all of the nondiscrimination bills help us define who we are as a people, she continues, and underscores our belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every american. by one survey, far more than a
third of individuals, lgbt individuals have experienced some form of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. that's a tremendous impact on the pursuit of happiness. that's a tremendous shrinking of freedom and liberty as envisioned in our founding documents. our vision for this nation. now, there are a number of issues that have been raised as colleagues have talked about the bill before it comes to the floor here. i wanted to address some of them. first, this bill is fully inclusive. it includes the lesbian, the gay, the bisexual, and the trans. -- transgender community. it should be fully inclusive because discrimination is wrong.
discrimination shrinks opportunity. discrimination is an offense against liberty and freedom in our nation the full participation in society. so of course this bill should be fully inclusive. as it is in 17 of the 21 states that have laws in their books right now. a second issue has been concern about lawsuits. we heard this yesterday from the speaker of the house. we have all of these pilots, if you will, 21 states with major than the book, all kinds of experience i asked the general accounting officer to do an update on the lawsuits. there's been no abuse, there's been no extraordinary stream of unfounded lawsuits against businesses. no damage to business. none at all. in oregon, lgbt discrimination
claims are less than 2% of the total number of employment discrimination claims. that's less than 1 out of 50. the united states has ranged from 2 to 6%. that's a small number. it's why the business community has remained so supportive far more than half, in fact, close to 90% of the fortune 500 companies have nondiscrimination practices they have adopted on their own. they have adopted it because it's good business. nike, in my home state of oregon says, quote, it's good for business. for employees, and for our communities. continues nike statement to say, inclusive nondiscrimination policy, quote, enable us to attract and retain the best and brightest people around the
world. that's why fortune 500 companies have lined up to adopt nondiscrimination provisions. because what is good for liberty, what is good for opportunity is good for business. and the study -- is simply false. a third concern is about the religious exemption. the religious exemption in this bill is deeply found on tight -- title vii of the civil rights act. there's a whole history of interpretation and understanding exactly where the boundaries are. this is the same religious exemption that was voted in favor of in the u.s. house of representatives by a major of 420 to 25.
420 to 25. this is the right foundation to make sure that we create the balance for religious organization. there are others who are concerned that simply the american people are not ready not ready for this discussion. despite the fact it's been adopted in 21 states. despite the fact we've had many related issues before the american public up from discussion including hate crimes, the matthew shepard hate crimes act. don't ask, don't tell, the supreme court discussion about marriage equality. certainly the americans are well familiar with this. in fact, 80% of americans think we're already done this. i was explaining to my daughter about this bill. this bill, this fight against
descrimghts and -- discrimination on terrible impact on liberty, fund -- but dad people can't fire others because they are lesbian or gay; right? she said that's not possible. and i said, sweety, it was possible right here in oregon until a couple of years ago when in 2007 we adopted nondiscrimination policies. nondiscrimination statutes for our state. and she just shook her head. and it took me back to when i was in high school and i was here hearing about jim crow systems of descrimghts -- discrimination those with dark skin instead of lighter. i thought, that's nod possible. not under our vision. it's not possible. it was possible. and very real well after i was
born. we ended that discrimination and time to end this discrimination. this is about the individual but it's about our nation. it's certainly about the vision of deck los angeles -- ebbinglation of independence that has the promise of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as a founding motivation. it certainly is about our constitution that says the core purpose is to cure the blessings of liberty. because certainly you do not have liberty if you do not have the full opportunity to participate in the workplace across america. senator ted kennedy, who carries
this battle until dais before his death. in fact, the quote i'm about to share is from august 5th, 2009. he died just 20 dais later. this may well have been one of his last public comments. introducing the 2009 bill may well have been one of his last legislative acts. he said, the promise of america will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to even one among us. i urge my colleagues, take a stance for equality. take a stand for fundamental fairness. take a stand for the vision of the pursuit of happiness embedded in our constitution.
take a stand for justice for all. support this bill. tell us about this bill, what is in it and some of its background. it's been before congress before. >> it has been. i mean, the last time the senate took up a version of the legislation it was in 1996 and failed to pass by one vote. the house took up a similar version in 2007. it was the last time the version which would ban workplace discrimination on basis of sexual orientation or yearned identity. in 2007 was the last time it came up in either chamber. that's why the legislation moving forward last night on a 61 to 30 vote is a big deal even if it does face a pretty dim prospect in the house.
>> the headline in "politico" of the piece said the gay rights measure advance in the senate. you write about some of the dynamic of the vote on and off the floor. tell us about that. >> yeah. so we -- it was always going a question as to which republican senators were going to come forward and help advance the bill. the legislation does have two republican cosponsors, susan colins of maine and marc kirk of illinois who have been vocal advocate for the legislation. there were two other republicans who voted for it in the committee were expected to help push the bill along, but throughout the day yesterday there were a lot of question marks on some of the republicans. in particular when we were looking at rob portman of ohio throughout the day yesterday as well as kelly ayotte of new hampshire and pat toomey of pennsylvania. behind the vote there was a lobbying effort on the senate floor reporters were in the
gallery watching. and the three key republicans were huddling in the clerk room with a democrat from oregon the chief sponsor of the legislation and one point chuck schumer goes over there. they were working behind scenes to secure the vote so they could move forward on the bill last night. >> in working to secure the votes, did senator toomey or any republican senatorrings get any commitment for amendment votes? >> they did. so they're going -- they -- kelly ayotte and rob portman secured a vote on their amendment that deals more with antiretaliation issues or religious groups. they look as a way of strengthening protections for religious organizations in the employee nondiscrimination act. senator toomey is going have another religion-related amendment. it's going broaden the number of groups that qualify under the religious exemption. senator merkley, who is kind of
the bellwether for -- the chief sponsor said last night he supports the proposal for ayotte and portman, not so sure about toomey. so that's the fate of that legislation is -- the fate of that measure is still unclear. they will get votes on both of them. >> will the senate vote on the bill before thanking giving? >> that's the plan. majority leader harry reid said we're going get it done. please, he said the senators he doesn't believe senators need use all the time left on the clock for debate on this bill. it's set to, i mean, after you vote on the couple of amendments it's set to pass in the coming days. we don't know exactly when. but the senate has a lot of other agenda itemmings to coas welt. so i think harry reid wants to move along on endata and get out of the way. >> you wrote about some of the rather bleak prospect in the house and tweeted yesterday about senator harkin saying that he wants the house democrats to
circulate a danger position on it in the house bhap does it mean? >> a danger position if you get 218 signatures on that. it pretty much forces the bill to the horse floor. obviously the house republican leadership controls what bills come on the floor. not if a danger position gets 218 votes. there's house democrats aren't for sure going to do the option yet. but a spokesman for house minority leader nancy pelosi said, quote, all options on the table to push it forward. the house version has 192 cosponsors. it's a matter of additional signature to get to the danger position as democrats choose to go that way. and danger position; hour, are pretty difficult especially for, you know, it would be difficult for republicans to sign one buck their party's leadership on the bill.
senator patty murray came to the floor to urge senators to work together on issues. her reheartheart-- remarks are about 10 minutes. >> earlier this year, a man named william, from washington, wrote to me to express his frustration with what he saw happening in congress. william served in the navy and works for a tech company that supports navy communications in the pacific northwest. like so many americans in recent years, he witnessed hiring freezes and cutbacks and furloughs and layoffs. he said a couple of years ago he was hoping for a promotion, but now he considers himself just lurky to have a job. he's not sure how long he can
count on that. mr. president, william is not alone. the partisanship and the grid lock here in washington, d.c., have been devastating for families just like his in my home state of washington and across the country. the government shut down and the debt brinksmanship rpt latest example. congress has been lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis for years. it's got to end. mr. president, today i'm going share a few stories from families who have been paying the price for dysfunction in congress. i worked hard to make sure voices like theirs are heard loud and clear in the bucket process. i'm going keep fighting to make sure their interests are represented every day as we work toward a balanced and bipartisan budget agreement. mr. president, seven months ago, the house and the senate each passed our budgets. the senate budget we passed here was built on three principles.
first of all, our highest priority was investing in jobs and economic growth and prosperity that was built from the middle out not from the top down. secondly, the deficit has been now cut in half and we build on $2.5 trillion deficit redpux we passed now since 2011 to continue to tackle this challenge fairly and responsibly. third, our budget keeps the promise we have made to our seniors, families and communities. the budget that passed the house reflects different values and priorities. but it was our job to get in a room, make some comprises with them, and find a way to bring those two budgets together. a lot i have hoped we could start this bipartisan budget negotiations far sooner and avoid last month's crisis. the budget conference that now has begun started last week offers us now the opportunity to
break this cycle of gridlock and dysfunction and start moving our country back in the right direction. we have a chance now to turn our attention back to where it belongs. strengthening our economy and creating jobs. continue making responsible spending cuts while closing wasteful tax loopholes that are used by the wealthiest americans and biggest cooperation. and show the american people that congress can work together. we can comprise. and alleviate the uncertainty and the pain that families across the country are facing. mr. presidenting with the effect of years of gridlock are clear in places like the denise education center in seattle. i visited the head start program earlier this year prek students can take part in story time, and tbreft health and nutrition
programs. even before the major cuts to head start that took effect last march, that center had a waiting list. now the director of the school has had to drop kids from the program because of these tight budget constraints. they are far from alone. another head start program in washington, a program that served needy kids since the 1970s had to completely shut its doors this summer because congress couldn't work together. that one facility alone was helping 40 kids prepare for cirnt garden. nationwide these cuts have forced ten of thousand of children out of head start. that's not all. the senseless cuts from sequestration have impacted education programs all across the country. researchers and scientists who are working on cures for cancer and other diseases have lost their jobs. programs like meals on wheels that deliver food to seniors
have been cut. there's so much more. the ripple of the so-called sequestration have been felt in our homes, businesses, and across our fragile economy. the across the board cuts have also had, of course, serious impact on defense programs and workers. earlier this year, i heard from one of my constituents whose family was impacted by the very directly. his name is bob from washington. he's an engineer at the naval shipyard. he told me every day highly skilled employees come in to his office often in tears and tell him they don't know how they are going manage to make ends meet if they're furloughed or laid off. they're worried now. they have felt the pain for months. they know it could get worse. because, mr. president, if these automatic cuts are not replaced in a bipartisan deal, another $20 billion is scjt --
scheduled to be cut from defense spending in january, just a few short months from now. that would make furloughs more likely and mean continued and deeper cuts to combat-training. mr. president, it doesn't have to be this way. because something both republicans and democrats agree on is that the very least this budget conference should be able to accomplish the absolute minimum is finding a path to replace those terrible sequestration cuts. and set a budget level for at least the short term. republican congressman is the house appropriations committee chairman he said sequestration and unrealistic and ill conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to the an end. even house speaker john boehner said the cuts would hallow out the military. just recently the house armed services committee republican sent me and chairman ryan a letter urging us to replace
sequestration saying it was, quote, never intended to be policy. mr. president, that is exactly right. sequestration was intended to be so bad it would drive both sides to the table to be willing to make some comprises to replace it with smarter savings. i'm very glad that more and more of our colleagues from both sides of this aisle have stepping up to try to find solution. the question now is now we should replace the across-the-board sequester cut but how. the house and the senate budget deal with sequestration just in different ways. the house budget fully replaces the defense kit -- cuts. they pay for it by cutting even more deeply and the committee domestic investment. our senate budget, on the other hand replaces all of the automatic cuts and i for it with
an equal mix of responding cuts and revenue. so, mr. president, finding a bipartisan solution won't be easy. we all know that. it will require comprise from both sides. if i mention in the first budget committee conference last week. i'm going to this process ready to offer some tough spending cuts up like those that disappear 2022 would be permanently locked to law. i know, there are many republicans who would be very interested in swapping some of the unefficient and damaging cuts from sequestration with structure changes to programs that save many multiple of the cuts replaced over the coming decades. in short, i'm willing to comprise. i'm red i -- ready to listen to republican's ideas. as long as their proposals are fair for seniors and families
i'm prepared to make some tough concessions to get the deal done. but i can't negotiate by myself. comprise has to run both ways. that means in addition to the responsible spending cuts, republicans need work with us. to close wasteful loophole. it would be unfair and unacceptable to put the entire burden of deficit reduction on the back of our seniors and fans. it shouldn't be difficult for republicans to agree to put a few of the most egregious, waste of the, loopholes and special interests carveout on the table? to get a balance and bipartisan deal. if the choose is between closing a wasteful loophole and lurching to another crisis. i hope every one of my colleagues would put the constituents before special interest. mr. president, over the last few years, people across the country have lost a great deal of
confidence in congress' ability to work together for the good of our nation. people like mr. king at "the new york times" recently reported serve as registered nurse at army medical center in washington. during the shut dob last month, she worked without pay. without a paycheck he had to dip to her retirement account to make her monthly mortgage payment. even though the shut down is over. her family can't take any chances. she told the times, quote, we have too much to lose. mr. president, we hear in congress owe it to her family and the families all over this country to work to find a path forward. let's put an tend the gridlock. lets put an end to the crisis and show the american people we're listening to them. in fact, let's show them their stories are more important than sticking to party lines or
staying in ideological corners. we have ore build trust. we need find a path to comprise and work together to sphrenten our economy and create jobs. i'm ready to do that in the budget conference. i'm hopeful over the coming weeks every one of my colleagues on the committee will make it clear they are as well. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. displncht now we hear from a couple more senators speaking on the senate floor about health care. it's 35 minutes. >> thank you. this morning in the health committee, we had an opportunity hear from the administrator. who came before the committee to talk about where we are in the process now with the exchanges set up through the affordable
care act. it was an fund in the five minute we have allocated to pose questions to speak to the situation in alaska as it relates to the exchanges. and i don't floor this afternoon because there was so much that i, as one senator, had to say you can't possibly condense in to a five-minute exchange. but it did cause me to want to take a moment to speak about what is happening on the ground in the state of alaska. i think it's probably not an unfair assessment to say that most of the constituent i'm hearing from are not supportive of the affordable care act, and
have been skeptical about what benefit the may come to our state. we are a high-cost state. high cost when it comes to health care and high cost when it comes to our insurance premiums. right now we are number two in the nation in term of the premiums that alaska people pay. and so as much as alaska people might not like the affordable care act, i hear very clearly their expression of concerns about making sure that we're working actively and aggressively to reduce the cost of health care fop increase and increase access to insurance that is affordable. but affordability is such a key factor in what we face.
i had a chance to query about the situation that we're seeing in the state of alaska right now with regards to enrollments within the exchange. the state of alaska has opted not to center its own state exchange. they are part of the federal exchange. in to the federally facilitated marketplace. i met with representative from enroll alaska just about ten days or so ago. was just about the 27th of october, i believe. that the point of time was informed there was one aca person that was successfully enrolled. i met with a navigators for the
aca native -- united way, providence hospital. they confirmed that no one had been successfully enrolled that the point in time. move it forward as of yesterday. it's been confirmed that enroll alaska, the entity set up specifically to advance enrollment within the exchanges has been able to enroll just three individuals. and has not been able to confirm that anyone else in this state has been successfully enrolled. so as folks are talking in different part of the country about what is happening, they're using numbers several thousand, several hundred initially. but it has been not only surprisingly slow, astonishingly slow to the point where is it even open? let me suggest that in alaska,
things are not really open right now. enroll alaska made a determination last week that they had discovered that the fffm the federally facilitated market places was calculating the sub i -- sub i did for alaska incorrectly. due to this they suspended all enrollment until it was resolved. i brought it up with the administration committee this morning. she acknowledged in fact they had learned that perhaps the calculation was incorrect, and that they were, quote, working on it. well, in the meantime you have folks that are interested in signing up, wanting to u avail themselves of the affordable care act or one of the 5600 who
received a letter on friday telling them their insurance was going to be canceled at year end. and being told, you can, in fact, sign up what they are going to offer. but in looking at their learning, that not only are their premiums going to increase. they want to know. am i going to get a better deal on the exchange? our problem is not being able to access to utilize and gain the information. when the entity that has been set up to help facility it said they have suspended all enrollments until the issue is resolved and further going the letter it was received last week they say we asked for the obama administration to pull the website down, rebuild it, and redeploy it.
.. to work. they want to help facilitate it. and things are as confused and complicated and, quite honestly, a mess with the exchange. up north, they're saying we're not going to -- we're not going to push further if we're not certain that the subsidy is being calculated correctly, it's not right to tell people that you can sign up in the state of alaska right now. ecogka right now. so the exchange's we recognize our ims. they need to be addressed.og at think we have recognized that at some point in time there will be addressed, corrected. iicat the administrator has indicatede that between 1:00 a.m. andtern 5:00 a.m. eastern standard timeo the exchanges are going to be
down to that they can work on it and be addressing these software glitches. 5:0a.m. well, 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. eastern standard time. for those of us that i living os the west coast, this is about dr the time when the dinner dishes are done, the kids' homework is time. they are in bed and you can sitr down at your computer and go online and try to figure outmige what might be the best option for you on an exchange, but wees are being told that the exchange is going to be down between the time that most alaskans and certainly alliance that are fivs hours time difference instead of just four, we will not even bee able to go online and to address it there.s that is one aspect of it, where we are with the exchanges and
what that is going to mean if we are still going to continue witt the deadlines that have been puu in place by the administration y in terms of when you have to sign up by and when you may be assessed a fine or penalty for failure to successfully and will. i mentioned that on friday ther5 was some 5600 alaskans, actually -- excuse me, 5,360 who receivec discontinuation notices from panera.emra is panera is theth largest health insurer in alaska. this represents about 60% of the folks that are insured within is the state in terms of itsbe. individual members. so when you think about these ls folks that have now received
their letters this weekend,hat recognized that the policies that they have had are not goint to be available to them.he they read in the knees, and they see on the evening news that tho ability to get online and to onh better understand what is going on with the exchange is noto available to them because the exchanges are down, whetherorki working on here in washington d.c. over their working on them. and that the entities, thegatoth navigators, the enroll alaska,ag those that have been put out there to help them navigate thin process are effectively saying, we cannot and will you right now , and with a lot until there is a greater assurance that thed system is up and running and working and the administrator
has confirmed to us today that we are working on it. in the meantime, we still have l these deadlines that folks are facing. the e-mails that have been coming to my office of late toot have not been concerns with the exchanges themselves. what we have seen in the past few weeks has been a concern any an outcry about what people will be expected to pay for their o insurance once all aspects oftoa the affordable care act come into play. i mentioned already, madam president, that alaska faces th. second highest premiums in the country.thou we are high for a lot of thingst our energy cost is some of theht highest in the nation to address the titian cost to some of thegt highest in the nation a, food cs costs are some of the highest of
the nation, health care cost,ng and now our premiums are going to be some of the highest in the nation. but we recognize that to live in alaska you -- it is expensive,ge so when you look at the average wages have an alaskan, they areo of little bit higher than youood might see in other parts of theu country.your that will help me pay for your transportation, fuel, food. but when we are talking about any level of a subsidy, this is a concern that we are seeing around the state, higher income levels will kick you out ofelig being eligible for any level of subsidy. so we have come out alaskans that are trying to be diligentd about their health care and the insurance, wanting to be able tt provide for their family in a
trying to figure out or do i go. i have a letter here from a gentleman in a pair of wings who runs a small knife and was out there. and he has indicated that he has -- he got the notice that theren were not going to continue his coverage. the new policy, the least expensive that he could get was going to cost $1,260, a pro $575. that this is over 60 percent increase that he is going to experience.p it 5,000, an increase of about $2,700.ho got an e-mail from a woman who is in the 55 and above age
bracket and she says, we make ar decent income, and so we will not be eligible for subsidies. we have looked at this.e they are going to be seeing premiums of over $1,500 a month this is more than non mortgage,s like taking on a second s mortgage. and also in her situation she says, my deductible has gone from $5,000 to six to 300. goi deductibles are going up, premiums are escalating, andw, this woman says, you know, am i going to be in a situation where it is just going to be cheaper for me to pay the fine? so i started going back through the binder that i have utilized to collect the bells from alaskans over the past few weeks .ncho a woman in anchorage says that
her rates are going to increase 23% from last year. a woman from tokyo says it is an increase of 47% with 1 of you remember in the family in short, a $10,000 deductible, but she is going up by 47 percent. this woman has indicated -- i calculated we are expected to have been increased monthly premium of 224%. our premiums will be exceeding a mortgage by more than $300 a month. william in anchorage says thate his health insurance has gone up 115%. and out in anchorage, a woman facing an increase in premiums of 45 percentage.t again, she has indicated that she has been informed the she ir
not going to be eligible for any level of a subsidy. that gentleman in this e-mail, anthony out of valdez has said he is looking at an 85% increast in these premiums, and that is just over the past four months,, when he started. a single guy, 31 years old.hy and healthy. i have money in my health savings account. but he has a situation where he will be paying an 85% increase in his medical insurance premiui and i have go through these -- these and other statistics. n is i addressed -- i know this is not about you.eopl
that representation for the people of alaska. address this. they are asking me to help themt now because they can't affordar. the affordable care act. and so i go through each of these and whether it is the folks in petersburg who are 25 a year-old male nonsmoker who hadi a $10,000 deductible and wasth paying $102 per month and now he will have to pay $281 with the $ $6,300 deductible, 3500 male nonsmoker now has to pay 340, 6d year-old nonsmoker paying 525 a month. we go through these stories.
linda theresa. say they are saying, i got what wasy coming away with health careefo reform, with reform it was going to increase my access and decrease might cost. frustration with the website ise one thing, madam president. and i am hopeful we get on the other side of that very soon.thn the people of alaska are doneg, holding their breath. hav they're basically saying, call me when you have it fixed.he goi with they are concerned about w' is, they are going to get the call, and we will be up against the end of the year. we'ot they already have their notices saying, we're not going to continue this coverage.pensf they are worried about, well,rgy
what happens if we have a family medical emergency in early january. the this all has not been it together. and did not get a very g satisfactory answer from the administrator this afternoon.ant i want to be able to have good answers, but i amat, extraordinarily concerned that as we address the issues withe, the website, the issues that the people in alaska who already face some of the highest cost for a living in a state are g going to be seen increased insurance costs that will be out of their range, out of their ability to pay. t the subsidies that they would like to think would make a difference are not available to them. madam president, we have a great deal of work to do here in this
congress to address health care reform, to address the drivingse cost that is making all of these stories that are kind to me and coming to all of us, what are a you going to do to address the concerns and my family. and i am trying to figure out how i need a call together. they want to know that the thee the day how we have reformed health care. how have we made our costs lower and increase access.ore i stand ready to work with my colleagues on this side of the aisle if we can fight argue thia
is just one part of what we are talking about. we have to be doing a better job when it comes to reining in the cost of health care itself. how we deal with the delivery system. we really have not touched how we deal with those markets like alaska. and we don't have a very attractive market.tce payment structures.
we have so much more that we need to be doing. and i would encourage us, let's not lose sight of what we have to do in resolving our issues as they relate to bringing down tht cost of health care at the end of the day. i know that my colleagues fro tennessee is here on the floor, and i would certainly yield the floor and thank him for his thank you, madam president.ss >> madame president i think the senator from alaska for herias excellent remarks. io's glad i was here to see thed she and the senator fromsnd i massachusetts all or at the hearing this morning where they have the center of medicaid andc medicare services talking abouts
the health care law. a senator from alaska wasn especially cogent in pointing out the difficulties and who differences between those twonai live in alaska and their inability to connect to theem services in the new health carel law. e if i remember correctly she sait only three have been able to drc enroll in pointed out the differences in time. i would like to spend a few minutes reflecting them whatthis happened this morning and what i said to the administration's witness., i begin by telling a story about 16,000 to alexian's who have insurance through something called cover tennessee. a low-cost coverage stateir program. obamacare is canceling a policy. the cover tennessee apparently is an example of what the
president has called bad applesd an insurance plan that washington has decided is not enough for you. t i recently heard from one ofn those who policy will bee cancelled on january 1. her name is amelie. thirty-nine years of age. she lives in tennessee and toldt me, i cannot keep my current plan because it does not meet this the standards of coverage. this alone is a travesty. it a lifeline with a discontinuations, i am beingeen forced to purchase a plan to tho exchange.increase a my insurance premiums alone will increase a staggering 410% by out of pocket expense will increase by more than 6,000 perh year which includes subsidies. please help mees, understand hoo this is affordable. mes madam president, our health carf system makes have reall
20 percent of the american economy touching the lives of l every american. tha today obamacare is pushing that 20 percent of our economy in the t wrong direction. as the president has said, thisb law is more than a website that will not work. the it is a law transforming our health care system in the wrong direction by increasing premiumr , cancelling insurance plans, destroying relationships with doctors, raising taxes, forcing people into medicaid,dia spending a half trillion ins of medicare dollars on a new t program instead of using the money to make medicare more solvent and encouraging employers to reduce their pleas to a 30-hour workweek.aili and having the irs threatens to by americans for failing to sign a for insurance on a website that does not work. now, the president has promised and this morning i read from the
white house website that it doee work. the president says on their website, if you like your healty care plan, you can keep it as long as you don't have to changh -- you can keep it, and you don't have to change a thing duf to the health care long.e it says to if you like your health care plan, you can keep it and do not have to change a thing due to health care law.ces in fact, the law cancels' millions of ianndividual policir for millions of others employerh are dropping insurance programs as they discovered the added a cost of obamacare.t th for these americans the new promises if you want health care, go find it of the websit that the administration says will be working properly in nece november. an unwelcome christmas presentno the way you are covered nextn
year when obamacare out what your policy. this administration at three in a half years to set of the arica website, millions of americans will have two weeks to buy their insuthrance. the president put the secretary in charge of implementing thisa. law. t i have called on her to resign because this has for so many americans. before the internet rca couldor tell you every day how many dayl elvis was selling. how many cars they were selling. mcdonald's will tell you every day how many members it sold. congressman ice has put on his s committee website notes from me in the obama and ministrations war room where apparently there telling each other how many people are rolling in obamacare. if you know how many people enrolling, how many have triedng to low level of insurance the they're buying, in what cinco. they live, white and he tell us.
tell congress, tell the american people. she said she would by the end ou the month. we need to know every day, madam president, every week at least. governors need to know. they make decisions about t expanding medicaid. would it not help to know howre many of these enrollees are going into medicate? members of congress need tot know.e amer we have appropriaicted hundredsn millions of dollars.ee they might gain confidence in the system if they could see that every day more people weret signing up for this so that. i cannot cover the fact we are not being told how many areany enrolled, how many of trying, what kind ranchers they're buying, or of a live. we have a right to know that.ha? why does the minister should noe tell us that? one senator describes the new health care law as an approaching train wreck.i i know something about trains. my
my grandfather was a railroadgir engineer in newton, kan. when ie was a little boy. i was sure he was the most import person in the world. his job was to drive a steam engine of locomotive under whatd they call the round table, a cod turnaround, and headed in the right direction.hat that was the only way you could turn something that big that fast.do that is what our country needs to do, turn this turnaround, term is longer around and headed in the rack direction.on obamacare is the wrong direction it expands a health care delivery system that we already knew costs too much. what is the right direction? the right direction is more choices, more competition that s the wars cost some more americans can afford to buy insurance. now, did not expect the republicans to show up on the senate floor with our 3,000 page
plan to move the health care delivery system in the way we be think it ought to. we don't believe in that approach.y. the our policy skeptics. we don't believe he's big, w comprehensive plans are wise enough to do what needs to bestw done. instead, we believe we should se change our health care delivery system step by step. i remember during the health care debate in 2010. i counted the number of times the republicans offered on the floor, sat on the floor, thehe step-by-step plan to take the a health of every system in airec different direction. 1703 times just during 2010. and here are some of the steps that we suggested in still do suggest that we should take to e turn the turnaround. make medicare solvent.aid
the trustees have said that inon two years there will have enough money to pay hospital bills. i no plenty who are counting oni medicare to pay the house bill. it reform medicare in vantage to compete on a level playing field with medicare which would provide competition, more choices for seniors from the congressional budget office says it would save taxpayers money. make medicaid flexible. when i was governor of tenness e medicated as 8% of the state budget.% the date is 26%. as a result democratic and republican governors ofy o tennessee have been told by rat washington to spend money on medicaid that they would rather spend a higher education. make medicaid more flexible. perhaps we can cover more people ce encourage employee wellnessame incentives. we talk a game, with the a
administration's regulationero actually limits the ability ofy, employers to say to the employees, if you have the healthy lifestyle your insurance will be cheaperwe. we should repeal thatyers to regulation, mickey's year for employers to incur some kind ofn behavior and offer cheaper insurance. allows small-business is to pool their resources and offered insurance together. become a small business plans. all of these steps are in legislative form, bills we havee introduced, steps we take today if we had enough votes to pass turning the turnaround and a adding it in a different direction by insurance acrossric state lines. americans could look on theur internet and buy insurance across state lines, they
choices, perhaps more americans could afford insurance. isn't that what we want to do?td chase the 30 or workweek to 40. hours. this is bipartisan lee supported. it is one of the worst features of obamacare. it says it creates a big incentive because businesses will have to reduce the numbero of working hours from 40 to 30 so that employees will be part time and not affected in the t business will not be affected by the obamacare rules whichiness. creates consternation within the business. the it does not create good relations between the employer and employee. but think about the employee, the pay cut, the employee drilling and finding another part-time job, another restaurant. a or not give these employees a? 33% pay increase. .. up above the so-called
minimum wage and give businesses a chance to have full-time employees again. so these are all steps that would change the health care delivery system by changing its direction away from expanding a health car system that we know already costs too much and send it in the direction of choice and competition and finding ways to lower the cost of health care plans so more americans can afford to buy insurance. afford to buy insurance. so more americans can afford to buy insurance. that 39-year-old tennessee woman who i talked about this morning to this panel the woman named emily who is losing her insurance because obamacare is decided that plan isn't good enough for her. finished her story with these words quote. this is one of the biggest
betrayals of our governmenthat has ever been committed on its citizens. i beg of you to continue to fight are those like me who only asked to be allowed to continue to have what we already enjoy, if their health insurance plan at a fair price. please find a way to return to affordable health care. one good way to do that is to put the president's words into law. if you like your health plan you can keep it. senator johnson of wisconsin has offered that legislation. i cosponsored it as others do. my message to emily is that i'm going to do my best to turn this trend around and had our health care delivery system in the right direction so that she can buy the key health care insurance that she can afford. i think the president and i yield the floor and i noticed the absence of the corn. >> the clerk will call the roll.
now a look at the economic impact of the 2008 financial crisis. speakers at this event include former u.s. representative and financial services commission barney frank former assistant treasury secretary neel kashkari rahm emanuel and former senator judd gregg. from the university of -- paulsen institute this is an hour. >> a remarkable panel here and
what i imagine is going to be a really terrific conversation we are going to have. we will try to get to the audience as quickly as possible as well. this panel discussion is about the politics of responding to a crisis, the politics of the bailout and i want to start if i could with the mayor who was not the mayor at the time. i want to think about tarp for a second. i want to think about t.a.r.p. 2 thousand eight but i want to ask you this political question about the world we live in today. we could go back five years i'm sure but if you could pretend unfortunately that we were in the midst of this financial crisis. given the ships and shinkman and the ships in the polarization of the country. my question is whether you believe congress, the senate and the president today would have been able to pass something like
tarp? >> you no. >> no? >> let me give the reason why a queue through. that is a small and not a big n no. i don't think this is fully appreciated at the time and i don't think it's fully appreciated now. think about this if you put it into context. first of all when hank paulsen and ben bernanke and commissioner cox came up to the hill, two months since u.s. political not financial. you're your two months before a presidential election. you are to two blunts before the entire house of representatives which is what happens every years and a third of the united states senate not counting gubernatogubernato rial in statehouse races. given all the feelings that were
happening through that going in for the last seven years i think people underappreciate the way that the democratic congress at that time responded to the national crisis. we didn't say hey this is your problem and your fall. we were told we had 48 hours to deliver $750 billion to the banks know questions asked and no rules written. while we worked through that issue, we stood up our responsibility to the country regardless of a looming election that the anti-or judgment could have been put on the president of the other party. we did our job. i don't think the congress today under the stewardship of the leadership although they gave you a lot of -- i could make a lot more partisan point if you want. you can snicker but it the last two weeks haven't told you anything i have a bridge over the tide is river you can buy. my point is i don't think that
and i remind everybody when the tarp that voted on the first time it went down -- think of what happened with the republican votes at that time. they didn't stand behind george bush so this crowd would be more understanding of the financial crisis than the crowd that voted tarp down the first-time? the answer is no. >> i know there's great danger with disagreeing with the mayor of chicago. >> your flight is now canceled. [laughter] >> that drive two uh-oh is going to be long. >> i have to nuances answer because i honestly believe that most of the tension and the dysfunction we are seeing in washington which is in my opinion inexcusable. crises are artificially driven. this was a real crisis. this was as deep and as serious
an offense as the congresses faced in my lifetime. and the language which was used by secretary paulsen and chairman bernanke when they came up and briefed the negotiating teams on that thursday night was dark. it was start. i think there was a willingness right at that point to put aside the politics and to reach an agreement and just commit ourselves to it. from that moment on the lead negotiator on the senate side and barney of course was on the house side and some of our colleagues from my site disappeared. >> fortunately. >> which is how something got done. >> there were big ideological questions but there was never an issue politics. it was just how worried going to do this?
you think the congressman would react again that way. i think the congress people are fundamentally good people and if there were a general crisis i think they would still do something. >> i disagree completely. first of all remember that even then when george bush was president the majority their publicans even on the second vote that voted no. even after the stock market was the worst and all they did was yell. they voted no. i said the house republicans. >> there is a 100-foot walk the other way. >> by the way it wasn't just members of congress. there was a great difference ridge in the presidential candidates and let's be clear. we weren't stupid. we knew what was happening. the talk will go down in history as the most highly successful popular thing the government has ever done and we knew that going in. we didn't know how successful it would be.
what you have first of all is bipartisanship. it takes longer to turn it over to the senate and the belief in the function of government. the house republicans today would have responded in that way and it's probably more partisanship. that is one of the political disadvantages we have had. a majority of the house republicans even after the stock market fell by 700 plus points still voted the seventh time around. >> i mean judd when we were in the room with hank in a side room off of the conference room it was you hank myself and barney. there were no house republicans.
they had a 750-point drop in the market and they still voted no. i don't know what you think this congress all of a sudden would be more amenable to a crisis than a congress that says that shows -- >> there were members of the republican party at the time he said yes this could be a bad thing but it's government intervention and that ideological absolutism is in the house republicans today. >> george bush gets credit for rising above the ideology of his party. >> i'm not going to get too many words in here and neel will probably get none.
>> i think that was directed at you, not me. >> i do believe we are governed by people who are generally committed to a better america and if confronted with a crisis of extraordinary proportions whether it's pearl harbor or the fiscal equivalenequivalen t of pearl harbor people will step up. >> barney is looking -- but hold that thought for one second. let me ask you this. >> that's the last thing you'll be saying. [laughter] >> we are going to listen to every word you say now. >> you worked on a document called the -- plan of april in 2008 several months before we landed and you met with ben bernanke and you had a plan in place. it was close to what ultimately turned out to be the plan. given that you saw it or we will give you credit for saying that a problem was on the horizon
maybe not the magnitude you appreciated, i don't know, do you think that there was a lesson in this that you could have, should have gone to congress than? maybe not for target you will but for some ability to try to wind down a financial institution. the lesson is you have to get there earlier? >> the problem as my colleagues on the panel are talking about, look at american history. think of one example when our democracy has prevented a bad outcome. our democracy is great at cleaning up a mess but think about climate change. how hard it is to get people to agree whether not climate change exists. to use and the chairman of the fed to the congress because they will have to raise their right hand and say if you don't give us this authority willful be in a great depression. imagine the treasury secretary and fed chairman raise their right hand and they say that in the congress says no. that crisis of confidence
triggered by the very act could resuscitate the crisis we are trying to prevent. our calculus was we can only go to congress when we have maximum change we will get authority and unfortunately this was not a grand strategy that unfortunately it took a lehman type event to catalyze the congress to act. >> what were you going to say? >> it's true. i was chairman of the financial services committee and became the chairman in 2007. my republican colleagues think or forget that they ran the congress until 2007. 2003 and 2004 i was in the minority and tom delay was not consulting me very regularly. i talked about this and my answer was i don't think we can do it. here is where we were and they said what is the partisanship. there was a deep ideology on the part of many of these people particularly by the census committee. jeb hensarling a deeply conservative man and scott garrett. i spent much of 2008 defending hank and then over bear stearns.
we wanted to have hearings and dragged him up there and announce them over bear stearns. that was hard nothing to get done. there was no way that kind of resolution procedure etc. was a significant government intervention. remember what we have been there. it says it is get that the government will take it over. it would not have worked in the reason is simple and i want to add this because sometimes we make the mistake of treating washington as as if somehow an autonomous bubble. it's driven by voter sentiment. if it's a great success the voters hated. we politicians -- the media makes me but the voters are no argun either. [laughter] i used to say that when i was at harvard. >> you might not think i'm so great that the constituents aren't so hot either.
this is why we never let him near freshmen members. [laughter] >> he here is -- you have this ideological tremendous intervention by the government. he stepped in and get rid of the board of directors and you fire people and you take the shareholders money and you do all these things and as i said it was a hard job for me as chairman of the committee. i would never want to put it to a vote the action by the fed in being so active in having bear stearns takeover. it would have failed in committee. >> mr. mayor you famously have said you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. christine romer made a comment earlier there was a big debate about who made the comment first but i will give you the credit for it. someone in the audience asked a what that meant when you said it that b -- do you think given that we are five years --
five years after a financial crisis, given the frustration in the country, given the fact that barney has now said the tarp may have been successful but deeply unpopular did the crisis go to waste? was there something that should've been done that wasn't? >> i made two points. never allow a good crisis to go to waste. it's not written to to do big things you otherwise would not done. we are here to talk about the financial crisis but landing on the presidents desk was the aut -- when he went to see president bush and josh bolten they worked out $24 billion to give to the auto industry out of tarp which was only for financial and that gives the auto industry taking ford with it. we would give them six weeks of running room and that is also
running room they are going to get. so now bailing out the auto industry at that time was as unpopular as beating out the financial sector and we have all the data from the obama demonstration including michigan hugely unpopular. now we have cleaned up their auto efficiency. at 16 million cars produced a year they were unprofitable and a 12 million they are profitable now and there are more people working in not auto industry writ large today then the crisis beforehand. there is a crisis and all the changes from rationalizing suppliers make sure the financial committee as well as the organized labor everybody had skin in the game and everybody had their hands on the bloody knife. the auto industry is a lot more competitive than it was pre-crisis and that was the crisis used to resolve decades
long decisions that were deferred and delayed that it finally been made. on the financial side, i think we are far better than where we were in the beginning. i i think there are some things and that still need to be done and work done and i include the auto industry which is much more competitive than it was before. one example being mayor, the ford auto plant on the south side of the city of chicago added a third shift, 1200 jobs 900 suppliers and it's the plant that exports 67 countries out of that facility more than any ford facility in the united states. that is a re-booted retooled auto industry with the crisis forced decisions. you could not do without a crisis. >> in retrospect and i asked this of everybody on the panel. was there a way to make tarp more politically palatable? i don't know but would ever be possible that given everyone on this panel i think suggests tarp
was a success and i would argue the public does not. real quick, what could you have done differently? barney. >> i did have a bumper sticker that i thought about using in 2010 but i was persuaded not to. it said things would have stopped the worst without me. [laughter] the political slogan. it was true but not helpful. two things. what people think would would he been helpful would have been. i thought hank did a wonderful job and i'm proud of the work we did together in a bipartisan way. we had two extremes. one was to initially go after the salaries. the single biggest point when anger almost overwhelmed us was when they aig bonuses were announced. the pitchforks --
i really worried about our capacity. we could have done more about that. the second thing people have said, why didn't you use more of that money or mortgages. we have that argument and i helped sell this bill to the democrats by saying we would have mortgage relief. we have to get this money out, acadian it with the banks slowing down the recovery. there were legitimate differences of opinion. the first 351 out without that. i room for saying i'm on the hook here. we need more money for mortgages. he then said all go well as i remember i will ask for the second tranche if obama says okay. one of the things people should look at an political scientist should look at is that the extent that some of the most important decisions taken by the
american government were taken during the transition. at that point when i asked the obama people month the response i got back was well we only have one president at a time. at that time i said i thought that overstated the number of presidents we had at that time. [laughter] i was chided by both. but here's the deal. i wish we had gone to the public policy standpoint. people who thought that was necessarily popular were wrong. there was a strong conservative argument, i pay my mortgage. there were people that were victimized by sub-prime loans and some people who bought a house and then it went up in property and they took out a home equity loan embodied both. in the end i don't think there was much we could have done. >> to both of you disagree? you are both nodding your heads now. >> we have the fundamental
belief of fairness. if you take that risk you bear the consequences of the risk. when you violate his society's when you violated societies corp. believes that leads to great anger. the discussion of whether congress would be able to act the fact that congress is so polarized today is actually a result of the actions we had to take in 2008. it's an unfair position to put the khan -- congress in. we created this. >> two things. one, there's no way can take a 750 billion-dollar bailout for the banks and make a popular. as someone who practice politics it's not possible. to "matt bill clinton, not possible. it was ugly and it would stay ugly. compensation was window dressing. it was fundamentally ugly and you had to overwhelm the system politically because you can't go more important than the politics. >> can i add one thing?
this terrible folk was taken as close to -- as possible. >> the other thing i would say is i don't think the congress is a reflection of those decisions. this person who practice those black arts is now a reformer. the system is set up for voters to pick representatives through technology representatives now pick their voters and that is why you have dysfunction in congress. it is turned it upside down and that's why doesn't work. >> we should not have picked a four-letter word to be the acronym. really the term became a being of itself and had no relationship to the actual legislative vehicle. the timeframe is so condensed in the crisis was so acute we didn't have time to do the politics around it. if we have the time we could have made a pretty good case that the folks on main street were the ones that this was about.
this was not about the banks. the fact that you went to your business on main st. they were going to have enough money to open and they were going to be able to -- he wouldn't have been able to go to your bank and get the money because your money would be -- the bank would be close. >> i would like to get my time to kneel. he hasn't said anything. >> will come back in one second. at the time the boat went down i would argue and the president and then senator were very magnanimous about wanting to pursue to harp and support her. having said that when you talk about the popularity of tarp or not there could be an argument made that later on once a president became the president he made a number of comments calling the bankers fatcats and making another -- a number of comments that were somewhat presidential around tarp and the recipients of tarp that have made some people would
argue make the program less popular. do you buy that? >> not at all. if i said that i wouldn't agree with what i said a minute ago. the program was not popular. hank knows this. i'm a proud democrat partisan. i put my political aside in judd you were there with barney. we were the two-point people for the house democrats trying to pass a bill with the national election and the entire house of representatives. i acted in a sense of -- >> i agree. the number two the president in his first speech in congress said and you forget this, he would ask for more money if it was necessary for additional.
we had a big debate in the white house that we are at a point given the stress test and everything else we may have needed more money or the market needed to hear that point that he was willing to going get more money to stave off the need which neel talked about earlier they need pre-crisis that you needed that and if anything he came to the aid and the defense of the financial system as a whole. bankers are not the financial system. don't ever confuse them. he was willing to spend political capital on the thing that was very unpopular and ask for additional resources and be necessary. he said that in his first address to the united states house of representatives and the united states senate in his address to the country. the issue brought up as it relates to compensation and bonuses was the first issue. he didn't say anything that hadn't been said by democrats or republicans prior to that. >> i think you have the cause and effect.
the question. the anger over the money being given to the banks was enormous. remember at the same time a large number of people again intervening to help people who are being foreclosed upon and much more controversial issue than people thought. people said don't give them money. they don't deserve it and i pay my mortgage and its moral hazard. should i stop paying my mortgage? you are giving help to people six months in arrears. obama having funded -- defendant this policy at giving. we couldn't be sure he paid at this point. giving money to the people had been part of the problem. i think his criticism was probably a political necessity on his part. it was an effort to drain off some of the agony and i will say
again i'm sure in my own mind or remember this clearly. we have two periods. it's pre-and post-aig bonuses. chris was very in fairly lame because he tried to stop aig bonuses. people accused him of allowing them and that is when all the anger really i think was unleashed. >> whatever political demonization happened whether it was necessary or not my question and i go to you neel is this. when tarp was originally conceived you thought the banks were going to keep the money for how long? the reason i asked the questions because they gave it back very quickly. some people think that's a good thing but clearly that was not part of the plan. >> our entire goal was to prevent the economy from collapsing so we wanted to put as much capital in the financial system writ large as possible and have it sit there. we decided to be there for three years and pay back over time. the rules and that being change
for political reasons. the pitchforks came out and they paid it back quickly which frankly was like a patient giving medicine back. i think a lot of us were concerned when the bank started paying back the tarp as quickly as they did and that was chen response to politics. >> and criticism i have to say the notion that these poor banks, that we hurt their feelings all these well protected people. get over it. that's tough. i am appalled by the hypersensitivity. maybe people say rude things about us all a time but what i was told to the things we felt were necessary to alleviate public anger were one of the things that drove them. people want to be free of compensation and they wanted a gannott i was struck by the ability to fly in your own plane meant to those people and the restrictions in flying around
was also the political thing. the outgoing president which was a great moment on george bush's part to defy his own party to some extent but it didn't occur to us to think these poor people. i also believe this was not stimulated by the politicians. this is genuine public anger. >> and appointed fairness the house republicans leadership step up and john boehner, eric cantor, paul ryan. >> they replace their negotiator >> they had no negotiator. >> yes they did. >> they still had a majority voting against them. >> understand but let's give credit where it is due. >> in my experience when the house leader